On October 19th Elections Canada announced the deregistration of the Pirate Party of Canada.The Party had been at risk of deregistration for a while due to problems getting enough peopleto send in proof that they were still party members (Which Elections Canada requires done every three years). However, it was a failure to hand in financial forms for the 2016 fiscal year that ultimately did them in. When I heard the party had been deregistered I was sad. The Pirate Party was the first political party I became heavily involved with. I still consider some of the people I worked with to be friends. This led to a bit of reflection on the party. On its successes and failures. On its potential and limitations. On whether it should remain dead or rise again.

The Once And Future Pirate Party

The Pirate Party of Canada faced a number of challenges during its existence. In my opinion all of them will need to befixed before the party is re-registered with Elections Canada. Now keep in mind I was last involved with the party in 2014so some of the issues I'm about to mention may have been fixed but I doubt it.

Having All Hands On DeckThe Pirate Party was almost always short of volunteers. And the trickle we did get were managed poorly. This problem isfoundational. All of the party's other problems stem from it in one way or another. It was so bad that I would set a lowtarget of 30 committed volunteers as the target to reach before registering again and it would be the most volunteersthe party has ever had at one time and close to the most total volunteers it had during the entire span of its existence. Efforts to run the party on less will lead to failure.

Completely normal group of people

The Ports Are EmptyRelated to the above point is the repeated failure of the party todevelop a strong 'grassroots'. Local meetings occurred in Ottawa,Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver but never got beyond gettingtogether and talking. The picture to the right is of a meet-up Iorganized in Calgary. While it might look like a promising start (AndI learned a lot about how copyright laws negatively effect people whoare blind and deaf from one of the attendees) future meetings had agrand total of zero people show up. Edmonton meetings wereinfrequent and Ottawa's meetings stopped when the local organizerhad to step away for personal reasons. Canada is a big place and itmakes local organizing both difficult and extremely important. The party needs to figure out how to organize effectivelyat the local level. Because if you are bringing people in at the local level it increases the volunteers you have at thefederal level. The internet is cool like that. Its also kind of helpful for raising money.

Pick A Ship And Stick With ItThe logo of the Pirate Party has been changed at least once. The party has had at least three website designs. Themembership list was moved from one database to another. Debates regarding the name kept re-occurring as did morefundamental questions about the party's nature (advocacy vs. electoral). Oh, and the constitution had a complete re-write. Pretty much all of the things I just listed ran into difficulties. Some merely resulted in inconsistencies (the logo atthe top of this article is not the party's final logo) but many severely hampered the party (the first website change tookthe website off-line for an extended period and destroyed the forum community). The debate often came down tokeeping something familiar that had limitations or moving to a platform that was in theory more powerful/cheaper. Toooften the latter option won out and the party's infrastructure was convulsed by some unanticipated problem. Or it took longer to make the change over than originally anticipated causing other headaches. The result is the party was oftenfocused inward rather than looking for new opportunities. All of this comes down to either not having enough peoplefor the job or one person's voice carrying too much weight. Both problems would be fixed by having more volunteers.

Arriving At Treasure A Day LateThe party had/has an impressive media contact list. And often when a story broke that we wanted to comment on wewould get a response out within a day or two. I've italicized what was a constant problem for the party. Often it was asimple case of wanting to make sure the press release was of good quality. Sometimes it was a case of everyone beingbusy. Keep in mind when I say everyone I essentially mean no more than five people. And these five people had otherparty business to deal with plus whatever else was going on in their lives. Still, our press releases were perhaps the mostsuccessful part of the party's work in terms of drawing attention to issues. A dedicated press release team of three wouldmake everyone's life a lot easier.

The Captain's Desiccated CorpseThe result of not having enough crew was often burnout. It happened repeatedly to many of our volunteers. It was veryhard on the party leaders. If you look at the term lengths for many of the Pirate Party's leaders you will find they serveda single year (or less). Part of this is due to the leader's term length (which I will get to in a minute) but the amount ofpressure on the leader is a contributing factor. Having served as leader I can tell you there is an odd pressure that I puton myself. You feel like you have to carry the party. I'm sure leaders in all fields have a similar feeling. The problem withthe party is too often its true. Larger parties have so much delegated that they can focus on setting the party's generaldirection. The Pirate Party (as I have made clear by now) has very little that can be delegated as it has few to delegate to.The result is too much on any one person's plate and burnout. Which results in fewer crew and more burnout.

Captain For A DayThe good thing for the person who becomes party leader is it is a one year commitment. This also happens to be a badthing for the party in the long run. A party leader would often come in with a vision, start working on it, burnout, and bereplaced by a leader with a different vision. While this ensures there will always be fresh meat to keep the party alive itisn't conducive to long term planning. If the party fixes its volunteer problem they should also look at longer terms for​its leaders.

The New Ship

(1) Have 30+ volunteers recruited and willing to do the heavy lifting of running a federal party.-If you could get every person who has seriously helped out in the past to come back you would have a lot of talent and experience ​to draw on. Just don't count on it happening.

(2) Make sure what the party's internet/constitutional infrastructure is reliable and stick with it.

(3) Extend the leader's term in office.

(4) Reduce the frequency of the General Meetings and replace it with an email plebiscite system. -The General Meetings are both an inspiring example of direct democracy and tedious wastes of time.-Judging by how often the General Meeting was without quorum I think it is safe to say the membership agrees.

(5) Change the party's name-I love the party's name (I wouldn't reference it on my blog if I didn't) but it is not useful.-If the party has to rely on a gimmick to get attention that says something poor about the party.

Other Musings

Maybe the party should focus on the provincial level? With BC looking at electoral reform there might be a golden opportunity for the Pirate Party to gain a foothold. The barriers to entry are also lower at the provincial level. The federalorganization would continue to exist in the background as an unregistered entity until success at the provincial levelallows it to return. And if you pulled it off its return would look a lot less like a failure broken by the weight of its issuesand more like the triumphal entry of a party ready to win at the federal level.

In a semi-surprising move Britain voted to leave the European Union late last week.There has been endless discussion on how bad this might be for Britain, where thecampaign to remain in the EU went wrong, and what this means for the Union'sfuture (both of them actually). What has received less attention is the fatal flaw thatresulted in this referendum being the most divisive in Britain's history.

I'm talking about the structure of the referendum itself. When the dust had settled the Leave side had a majority of...~52%. I can't be the only one who finds determining national policy on the basis of a 50/50 split to be moronic. Back inthe 1970s Britain held a referendum on its joining the EU which the Join side won with 67% of the vote. Hindsight being20/20 one of two things should have occurred. 1. 67% should have been set as the percentage needed to leave the EU.2. A 'clear majority' should have been set as necessary for any referendum question to change the status quo. Had theydone so both the Scottish sovereignty movement and the Leave campaign would now be on thin ice.

National votes are almost always divisive. It is one of the reasons I don't support having an elected head of state and whyI'm somewhat cool to the idea of having a vote on electoral reform. Canada almost went through a Quexit in the 1990s.We learned from it though. We set the bar as being a 'clear majority' being needed for a province to separate. We neverdefined a 'clear majority' but it was something. And you know what? It has brought a bit of peace to federal-provincialrelations.

Unfortunately, Britain can't do this right now. In Canada's case the Quebec separatists had been given two kicks at thecan and lost. We gave them a fair shot and then put some guidelines in place. If Britain tried that now the Scottish(probably the Irish too) would be livid. There would be no way of portraying it as anything other than an attempt to keepScotland in the UK. So Britain would probably still lose a rematch anyways.

Lesson of the day: If you are going to embrace vox populi, vox dei make sure you have some clear guidelines in place first.

For a while now I've been a member of the Srsly WrongDebate Club on Facebook. It was Created by podcastersShawn Vuillez & Aaron Moritz as a place for fun, but also rational, debate. The debate page is an extension ofShawn and Aaron's podcast which addresses a widerange of topics in a semi-irreverent and off-beat style.

As someone who was there from the first day I've seenhow the club has grown and changed. This post is myreflections on the club's growth and the extent it hasachieved its purpose. Its also a plug for the group (anda fairly shameless one at that) as the group is only asgood as the diversity of opinions present. I'm sure thisisn't the only such group on Facebook but I'd argue itsone of the better ones.

The Primordial Soup

The first week of the group's existence was exciting, chaotic, and downright messy. Both Shawn and Aaron seemed to have invited their entire friends lists. The group make-up was pretty heavily skewed towards Vancouver residents as aresult. Not that that mattered. Debate was lively and wide-ranging. One person remarked that the debate club was consuming their social life and I have to agree it did so for me as well. Tellingly you can pinpoint when the group started up by looking when I stopped posting to this blog.

Logical Fallacies, Bad Boy Jail, and Darklords

I think the group made it three, maybe four, days before anyone had to be banned. If the group had an ironclad rule inthe beginning it was this: You can make any argument provided you backed it up with polite, reasoned debate andavoided all logical fallacies. A debate on issues concerning feminism brought out the first person unable to abide by theserules. He was banned. Shawn, to his credit, did figure out an interesting way to handle those who broke club rules; theBad Boy Jail. Acting as half holding pen for malcontents and half as anti-logic debate club I have to admit it worked quitewell. Those who broke club rules to the point of being banned would be given the option of joining (or in one case trickedinto joining) the Bad Boy Jail. To my knowledge only one has ever returned. Although it appears they are generally happyin their new home from what I've heard. Still, the early group posts are littered with those who decided to leave fairlyearly on (as my partial index demonstrates).

Semi-Maturity

By a month after the group's founding things had settled down. It was still fun but now there was more of a routine. Clubdemographics still leaned Vancouverite and left-wing but there was starting to be some diversity. At a little over 500members it is of a respectable size. I still kind of wish there was a more recognizable conservative presence but that ispurely personal preference. There has been talk of arranging one-on-one debates and holding an event in real life. Buteven without those things I think the debate club is doing quite well.

The sense of community provided by the debate group and the ease of sharing ideas demonstrates why platforms likeFacebook, Twitter, and Reddit have steadily eaten into the number of people blogging.

Recently a friend of mine on Facebook was asking why conservatives seemed to misunderstand a key aspect ofliberalism. The question was, and is, an interesting one. And it led me back to a field of study I first encountered inuniversity and have run across from time to time since then. Specifically I am referring to the ideas of Jonathan Haidt.He proposed that a lot of the anger generated between liberals and conservatives is because both groups assume thatthere is only one scale for morality by which people use to guide their actions. Both liberals and conservatives jointlyassume that their disagreement stems from the other side being less moral than themselves. Jonathan Haidt arguesinstead that there are in fact at least five scales by which moral action is calculated. As the above article states actions canfall under 5 separate 'moral impulses':

Harm/care: It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.Fairness/reciprocity: Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.In-group loyalty: People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty, and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.Authority/respect: People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.Purity/sanctity: The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination, and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Liberals tend to only have a strong affinity for the first two impulses while conservatives value all five more or lessequally. As a result liberals tend to have a certain 'colour blindness' when it comes to understanding conservative viewsleading them to think conservatives just don't care. Likewise, since conservatives don't value the first two impulses nearlyas highly as liberals their actions appear naive or even foolish. Meanwhile, the lack of respect for the latter three moralimpulses can lead conservatives to view liberals as immoral. A few years ago I was interviewed by a university studentnamed David Sumantry about the Pirate Party of Canada and how its beliefs aligned with these different moral impulses.I also had my own survey done at the time.

My results in green

The theory is interesting and worthy of further study. Of course, understanding why your political opponents havedifferent views doesn't mean you will necessarily be any less partisan about it. Not with the left and the right shrillydecrying their opponents. But perhaps the next time you hear someone talking about an issue you could take a second​to figure out what moral impulse they're playing at. I'm willing to bet the discussion will be less rancorous if nothing else.

It is not a secret that, as a general rule, conservatives seem to support monarchy more thanprogressives. While it is true that conservative support for tradition and established authoritymake support for monarchy quite natural what aspect of monarchy makes it such anincomparable ideal for progressives?

This question has played in the back of my mind for a while now. I ponder it as my own examination of monarchy reveals not two incompatible ideals as is commonly assumed butones that often gain a great deal from each other. Before I continue with my main argument thatmonarchy should be considered a progressive ideal it might be helpful to define what I mean byboth monarchy and progressivism.

'Monarchy' literally means 'rule by one'. It is the world's most successful system of governmenthaving been adapted for use from China to Peru and from the dawn of human history up topresent day. A system that has been so widely used has to be flexible. And, indeed, monarchy hasmany variations. While I could get into the myriad differences between Canada's hereditarychiefs and Imperial Russia's tsars I'd like to move ahead somewhat quickly. Sufficed to say thatwhile many of the points I will make apply to other forms of monarchy I will be focusing strictlyon constitutional monarchy where the monarch reigns but does not rule. Constitutional monarchyis a system where the monarch lets elected officials handle the day-to-day governance. Themonarch may have real reserve powers (as in Canada, Denmark, Britain) or they my be limited to astrictly ceremonial role (Sweden, Japan). Special mention should be made of Monaco andLiechtenstein who have elected assemblies but whose monarchs do participate in the governing ofthe country. And while the Parliament need not be democratic in a constitutional monarchy,remaining constitutional monarchies are also mostly democratic states.

'Progressivism' is an interesting belief system due in no small part to the contested definition of it.I cast a wide net in my search for an adequate definition consulting in their turn Wikipedia, TheProgressive Bloggers, a couplefriendsof mine that I would consider progressive, and others.From these sources I was able to come up with two definitions of progressivism; one formal andone informal. The formal definition is that progressivism is:

The idea that advances in technology, science, and social organization can produceimprovements to the human condition. Additionally, the belief that the above advances have worth. A supporting belief is that history is linear, not cyclical (ie. human progress never reaches a plateau or perfect state but always seeks to move towards it).

My friends contributed much of what I call the informal definition of progressivism:

The idea that society must continue to change, that the status quo cannot be considered progressive. History itself has a 'story arc' leading to the further advancement of humanity.

Much of this article is meant to show that monarchy is a system that uniquely supports humanprogress as defined by the formal definition. Because the informal definition explicitly excludesthe status quo I will show that no other system of government falls within it. ie that the definitionitself adds little value to our understanding of ​human progress. But even then I will argue thatmonarchy can be considered a progressive ideal.

Ok, with a workable definition of what monarchy and Progressivism is we can continue. I'm goingto make a couple assertions that I hope will be uncontroversial: 1. An ideal is progressive when the basic ideas of progressivism support its existence.2. An individual is a progressive if they support progressive ideals and undertake to advanceprogressive causes.3. An institution is progressive when its existence supports progressive ​results and is supported byprogressive individuals.

It is my argument that monarchy should be considered a progressive institution/ideal. The primary purpose of making this argument is to counter the assertion that republicanism is somehow themore progressive option in all cases.

As I have written about a number of times before there is some interesting academic research that has been done on monarchy as a government system. You can go through the links above to find the relevant studies but to summarize:

Monarchies handle large institutional reforms better than republics.

Monarchies may liberalize quicker than republics.

Directly electing heads of state contribute to a 5-7% drop in votes for legislative elections.

Electing heads of state does not appear to lessen voter alienation or apathy.

Constitutional monarchies have a marked preference for consulting the public in times of political dispute.

Monarchies seem to generate, or at least do not harm, generalized trust between citizens.

There is no correlation between monarchy and income inequality.

Indirectly-elected presidents are no less likely to be partisan if their position possesses actual power.

The first point is especially important for progressives. The ability to undertake institutionalchanges without negative effects makes progress easier to achieve. If every change to societyresults in noticeable difficulties there is a resulting tendency towards the status quo. But overall, Ibring these studies up because progressives believe that scientific knowledge should be taken intoconsideration when making policy decisions. If improvements to social organization is a value ofprogress it is equally true that those improvements should have a basis in evidence.

Further, since the above studies show that monarchy has specific advantages when it comes topromoting economic, democratic, and social progress it can in fact be argued that monarchy is aprogressive ideal.

But what of the monarchs themselves and their families? Well, the Queen's address to the UNfrom 2010 sheds some light on what Her Majesty values. Specifically the part that says "I have alsowitnessed great change, much of it for the better, particularly in science and technology, and in socialattitudes. Remarkably, many of these sweeping advances have come about not because of governments,committee resolutions, or central directives - although all these have played a part - but instead becausemillions of people around the world have wanted them." The Queen has also shown a keen interestin using new technologies to better carry outher roles as monarch. Prince Charles likewise hasused his position as the Prince of Wales to actively promote progressive causes. His advice togovernment ministers has likewise been of a progressive nature. The Duchess of Cornwall hastaken up the cause of rape victims. Prince William recently spoke out against bullying andhomophobia in schools. Collectively the Royal Family supports about 3000 charities. All of which isonly to point out that our Royal Family is a rather progressive bunch. Much of this can be tracedback to Prince Albert who was ​a major patron of science. "But", I hear you say, "what aboutall those other monarchs?"

Well, in Morocco the king has agreed to subsidize the kingdom's solar power generation in orderto keep prices low. This step potentially sets the kingdom up to be a green energy superpower.

And who can forget King Juan Carlos I's restoration of Spanish democracy? He isn't even the onlymonarch in the modern times to move from absolute rule to democracy. The monarchs of Bhutanhave encouraged democracy in the country since the 1950s which culminated in a full transitionto constitutional monarchy in 2008. Both brought their countries peacefully into democracy.

Indeed, monarchy seems to have a tendency to produce leaders who are more progressive thantheir subjects. This makes sense when you consider that a low levels of education is connected togreater political conservatism. Monarchs are trained from birth to rule and also tend to have along apprenticeship. The odds are stacked against them becoming conservatives. You could arguethe reason that you see fewer progressive monarchs in the House of Saud is their habit ofavoiding hereditary succession. A couple of years ago VICE ran an article where they interviewedBaptiste Roger-Lacan who noted that "It's important to notice that nowadays republican France ismore conservative compared with some European monarchies, like the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark." You could say much the same about Germany.

​But returning to the Canadian Royal Family we can see there is a large number of progressives. This leads to my third point that an institution made up of progressives can be consideredprogressive itself. Nor are the progressives of the Royal Family the only progressives to supportthe monarchy. With members promoting progressive causes and the institution itself seeming to encourage progressive results I argue the monarchy is a progressive institution.

This concludes my look at monarchy from the perspective of the formal definition of progressivism. Next up, the informal definition.

My first thoughts on the informal definition is just how common it is among republicans. Thenumber of times I've heard monarchy referred to as an archaic system is unbelievable. That itseems to excludes any form of government makes me question its usefulness. Consider that theoldest currently existing republic was established in 301 AD. If progressivism entails a constantforward advance this republic would be excluded. Could we say that any aspect of government isprogressive? Human rights? Nope. The concept is quite old. Democracy? Ditto.

Ultimately, tying progress to movement from the status quo always becomes problematic. There isa way around this. Consider human rights as an example. While the concept of human rightscontinues as a solid ideal, how we interpret them change over time. By the same token while thebasic premise of monarchy has remained the same it has gone through major changes. Whetherwe look at the monarchy's movement from executive to moral leadership, legitimacy via divineright to legitimacy via parliamentary/constitutional support, rule by custom to rule by statute, or asingle imperial crown to a multitude of national crowns it is hard to argue that the monarchy hasnot changed (and continues to change). But in doing so it has kept fundamental aspects of itselfconsistent because they work. So in a sense you could argue that monarchy meets the informal​definition of progress. Going from a monarchy to a republic isn't so much progress as it isjumping from one path to another without regard for whether the new path is a progressive one.

Now, while I think I have made a good effort at explaining why I see monarchy as being completely compatible with progressivism I don't expect progressives to agree. I say this because there are few people who are only progressives. Most also ascribe to liberalism, socialism, social democracy, or republicanism. And these ideologies often have their own criticisms of monarchy. But perhaps I can hope that they will admit that their opposition to monarchy stems from secondary beliefsrather than any intrinsic conflict between monarchy and progressivism.

Back in May I came up with an idea for electoral reform. Since then I've been seeking input, looking for similarelectoral systems, and trying to judge what the public would think of SM-PV. In all three areas I have had a bit of success.For those who didn't check out the link above my proposed system keeps most of the FPTP system intact with one keychange: every MP in the House of Commons would have a vote that is stronger or weaker based on their party's share of the popular vote. The result being that FPTP's tendency towards majority governments is preserved but the ability to passlegislation would be tied to the government's share of the popular vote. If you want a more in depth look at how this might work check out the link above.

Prof. Andrew Heard Weighs In

I contacted Prof. Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser University after seeing his comments on electoral reform in the paperone day. I specifically was looking for a critique of SM-PV. The Professor was happy to give a short reply:

Hi James,

It's very good to hear from you. Many thanks for letting me know about your idea for modifying the electoral system. You have a great idea there, in many ways, and it made me pause and think about the possibilities. I do like the advantage of not having to change anything except the weight of each MP's vote. I guess the one possible weakness is that it wouldn't correct the tendency of the first-past-the-post to allow a party to dominate or blank out the other parties in a province or region. The Liberal victory in every seat in Atlantic Canada, in the recent election, is an example.

Thanks once again - you've given me good food for thought!Andy Heard

The Professor raised a valid concern. While my system allows votes for parties that don't win seats (or regions) to still help the voter's preferred party it doesn't help a party ensure regional representation. On one hand making sure everyregion has MPs in both Her Majesty's Government as well as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is important for helpingparties understand regional concerns. But on the other hand perhaps a temporary shellacking acts as a wake up call toparties that their policies in a region need a re-think. Rarely do such complete lockouts last for more than one electioncycle. Equally important are the other avenues the regions have to make their concerns known to the affected parties,namely the provincial premiers and the (much maligned) Senate.

I am glad that Prof. Heard agrees that only having to change the weight of each MP's vote is an advantage. As I will show​further down, Canadians agree.

Direct Party and Representative Voting

When I first developed my current idea for electoral reform I searched around to see if anyone was developing similarsystems. At the time I didn't find anything. There are no legislatures that use weighted voting systems and most electoralreform debates are between Ranked Vote and Proportional Representation. So it was exciting to stumble upon an effortin Britain to establish a similar weighted voting system. Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR) differs fromSingle Member-Proportional Vote only in that DPR has voters choose both the candidate they support as well as theparty they support. The latter vote determines how the votes are weighted in the ensuing parliament. I'm not convincedthe extra ballot is strictly necessary. It also may create situations where the party that gets the most MPs is not the partythat people support the most. This has a few potential problems. However, Stephen Johnson has done a lot of the​legwork of investigating how a weighted voting system would be advantageous which has been a great help to me.

Canadians Want Modest Electoral Reform

Q: Based on what you know and feel about the way we elect members of Parliament, which of the following statements comes closest to your view?

Source: Abacus Data

As you can see 58% are either okay with the current system or only want minor changes. SM-PV comes closest to​meeting the preferences of a majority of Canadians.

When asked what 5 things Canadians valued in an electoral system they gave the below proportion of answers. I havecoloured red the values SM-PV does not help. I've marked one value in orange since while my system doesn't supportit that is because it by-passes the issue entirely.

Source: Abacus Data with modifications by me

As you can see SM-PV meets the main expectations Canadians have of their electoral system. The report makes one​more interesting point in this section:

Of note, respondents were offered a goal of "electing majority government" anddespite this, only 25% ranked it in their top five issues, suggesting it is not the typeof government a voting system produces that is important but the nature of thegovernment. In other words, preference for a “strong and stable government” should not be confused for preference for a system that produces majorities.

My system actually meets both criteria. I will note that the 'strong & stable' governments it produces are stable in theirability to survive explicit confidence votes (Speech From The Throne, Budget, and Motion Of No Confidence). However, their ability to pass legislation functions more like a minority government. When the results include only those who want electoral reform the list ends up a bit different:

Source: Abacus Data with modifications by me

It should be noted that SM-PV only fails the top listed value on this list (and the last list for that matter) on a technicalbasis. Why are seat totals matching popular vote such a concern? Because seat totals represent the ability to passlegislation. In SM-PV this is instead taken care of by modifying voting power rather than seat totals.

Source: Abacus Data

The above graph was taken from those who want change. They were asked to rank four pre-selected systems in order​of preference. Not surprisingly no weighted systems were considered. Of note is the preference for proportional systemswhich SM-PV could technically be classified as. Also, note that our current system was the 2nd or 3rd choice 55% of thetime. It out-ranked each other system in this regard. Taken with the earlier graph that showed a majority only wantminor changes to the electoral system it can be argued that most Canadians would accept a modified FPTP system​that adds proportionality. SM-PV, in other words.

Much of the rest of the study looks at what the last election would look like under different electoral systems. This is aneasy process under SM-PV: The Liberal Party would have a stable majority government but have to consult the otherparties in order to pass their legislation.

SM-PV is likely one of the few contenders that both those who want electoral reform and those who don't would bewilling to accept. Should it get a proper hearing at the yet-announced electoral reform committee it will be interesting​how the debate develops.

So it has been another few months of above average temperatures. Focus has been on COP21 and what politicians hopewill be the deal that saves the Earth. Now while a fair amount of ire has been directed at climate change deniers theymay not represent the greatest obstacle to fixing CO2 levels.

Consider this scenario: Its December and the average should be 0 degrees Celsius. Now what if the temperature was anice 15 degrees all month. What would be the response from the average Canadian? My money would be on themsaying they like the mild temperatures. In fact I'd bet money all comments would positive about the "wonderful weatherwe were having". I know because that is what people have been saying. No one is saying its too bad its not colder.

If Canada is to make the changes it needs it is time for Canadians to start embracing the cold. After all, a housedivided against itself cannot stand. Canadians need to start thinking of our frigid winters as a good thing.

The Conservative Party announced its Shadow Cabinet and Critic roles today. Of the various MPs holding Oppositionroles there are six I will be in contact with in the immediate future (by which I mean after Parliament's website updatesits contact information). Here are the six I have my eye on, their portfolio, and the reason for my interest in them.

​Hon. Maxime BernierInnovation, Science and Economic Development

As I have written about several times I am critical of Canada's intellectual property laws. I view them as largelyunnecessary to innovators and artists as well as harmful to innovation and culture. Reducing (and perhaps eliminating)barriers to greater innovation and increased free market competition would greatly help the Canadian economy. Gettingthe Conservatives to see intellectual property for what it is; a government-sanctioned private monopoly, is a major targetfor the coming term. For a similar reason I will be looking to get in contact with the Hon. Diane Finley who is Oppositioncritic forInnovation, Science and Economic Development.

​Their previously stated views on the issue appear to follow the line that there needs to be 'balance' between IP law andthe public good. One particular statement by the Hon. Bernier is interesting:

"Unlike the opposition, we know that governments do not create jobs; entrepreneurs are theones who create jobs and wealth. We must encourage them to do so, including by cuttingcorporate tax rates. When we came to power, the corporate tax rate was 22%. We haveconsiderably reduced that rate. A lower tax rate is important because it leaves businesseswith more money to develop their projects, export their products and enter new markets."

Tax cuts and decreased regulation on business are Conservative Party dogma. Portraying IP law (especially patent law) asbeing simultaneously a tax on innovation and government-sanctioned red tape is not all that hard. The latter pointeven has its own name; The Patent Thicket. This argument, and others, will be made to the Hon. Maxime Bernier andthe Hon. Diane Finley.

Scott ReidDemocratic Institutions

Scott Reid is not an MP who I am familiar with but he has apparently been an MP since the days of the Canadian Alliance.His support for electoral reform is long-standing so I guess his new position is a natural development considering wemay be entering a debate on this issue soon.

As I have proposed a new electoral system I will be contacting Mr. Reid on how best to have my idea discussed incommittee. Likewise, I will be contacting Blake Richards for the same reason.

As somewhat of a side note. I contacted Prof. Andrew Heard and he was quite supportive of my idea. He gave me a bitof ​advice on a potential issue to check out which is much appreciated.

Hon. Peter Van LoanCanadian Heritage and National Historic Sites

My main priority in contacting the Hon. Peter Van Loan and Canadian Heritage and National Historic Sites Critic KevinWaugh will be ensuring the Advisory Committee on Vice-Regal Appointments remains in place. For far too manyyears the position of Governor General drifted towards being a mere patronage appointment of the sitting Prime​Minister. The creation of the committee gives the position some necessary distance from the Prime Ministers Office.While it is not at all certain the Liberals would get rid of the committee since they proposed largely the same idea for theSenate it is never a bad idea to create consensus on all sides for keeping it.

I have not been able to find any stated opinion on the monarchy by either MP. This is another area I will ask about.

There are likely to be two reactions to me joining the Conservative Party. For those who see the blog name the reaction islikely to me "Wait, you weren't already a member of the Conservative Party". Well, no. While I am a tory (in the ideologicalsense of the word) the Conservative Party has not been over the last few years with the reform wing dominating the​party's direction. Those who know me personally are more likely to have the following reaction:

"Why!?"

Good question, Yui. The Conservative Party is having the first real discussion on what it stands for in a decade. As a torythis is a discussion that I want to be a part of.

And there is a lot to discuss. On some issues the party has had the right ideas and implemented them well (support forthe monarchy, respecting free votes on private member's bills, eliminating the Long Gun Registry, and avoiding meddlingin provincial affairs). On other issues the party had the right general idea but failed in the implementation (the copyrightreform saga, military procurement, and free trade). And finally the Conservatives pursued some ideas that were prettybad and that implementation made worse (everything about the 2015 Election Campaign, oppressive party discipline,rejection of evidence-based policy, and increased government surveillance).

​So what ideas do I think the Conservative Party should pursue? Well, off the top of my head:

Institute Basic Income

Former Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has proposed similar ideas and the policy holds appeal to conservatives for afew reasons:1. It eliminates poverty rather than just managing it ineffectively as the current Welfare system does.2. It is less expensive than the current welfare system (which means more money for other things).3. It would allow the government to slash the Welfare bureaucracy without being complete jerks for doing so.

Weaken Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property is rather confusingly named as it is actually a monopoly protection rather than a legitimate property​right.

“For example, if I have a hard disk, it is my property and I can arrange the patterns of magnetic alignment on it in any way I choose; and if I cannot, because copyright law forbids me, my property right in the hard disk has been reduced. Or similarly if I own a lathe and a milling machine, and some raw materials, I can make an internal combustion engine or other machine from the raw materials; and if I cannot, because patent laws forbid me, then my property rights have been diminished. So to the extent that you believe in property rights over real property (i.e. anything tangible), you can’t also believe in property rights in imaginary property (i.e. so-called ‘intellectual’ property).” -Philip Hunt

Greater Transparency & Accountability...For Real This Time

The failure of the Harper Ministry to make serious advances in being transparent and accountable is regrettable for manyreasons.1. Many of the scandals that plagued the Conservatives over their last term were the result of lax accountability laws.2. If you see government as a force for good in society (as I do) you want to know resources are being used effectively.3. If you see government as an ever-present danger you likewise want to be able to keep a close eye on it.Cutting down on corruption, scandals, and waste pays dividends by increasingly public trust and saving money.

One-on-One Free Trade

The TPP is a disaster. But what is worse its a disaster that is difficult to get out of or reform. This is mostly due to thenumber of participating countries that both makes leaving it an unsavory proposition and makes changing its termsdifficult. Much preferable are one-on-one agreements like the Canada-South Korea trade agreement that allow thecountries to remain flexible. Changes can be made and if the need to abandon the deal arises it can be done without​greatly harming our trade strategy.

The last election was not a disaster for the Conservative Party. It remains in a competitive position for the next election.However, it was a disaster for conservatives in Eastern Canada, many of whom are part of the tory tradition of the oldProgressive Conservative Party. The reform branch of the party deserves the lion share of blame for this seeing as it hasincreasingly been setting the agenda. It is time to speak up for our brand of conservatism. One that sees the governmentas a tool for good, not an impediment to it. One that takes pride in our country's traditions without fearing the traditionsof others. One that stands up for the little guy rather than standing on the little guy.

My internet picks the worst times to stop working. As a result I was without internet for the lead up and aftermath ofelection 2015. But I'm back online and ready to give my thoughts on Monday's election results.

Fundy Royal Goes Liberal

I never imagined I'd see the day when the riding of Fundy Royal would elect a Liberal. Further, I never imagined I'd behappy about it. I took the time to contact each MP during the campaign (and met many of them in person) and it wasLiberal candidate Alaina Lockhart who impressed me the most. Accessible, willing to listen, and pleasant to talk to shepassed the fundamental first test of any candidate: do they listen. This is especially important considering I have neverfound former MP Rob Moore to be all that communicative. Numerous emails (both mine and others) were leftunanswered. And he was the only candidate not to get back to me with answers to my policy inquires. Both the NDP andGreen candidates were pretty good at getting back to me but both held opinions I found troublesome. I look forward to​seeing what Alaina does with the opportunity that has been given to her.

The 'Change' Election That Really Wasn't

Canada now has a strong majority government under the Liberal Party, A solid opposition in the Conservative Party, aNew Democratic Party returned to its natural place in third, and a bit of random detritus rounding out the final few seats.While those with short memories will find this a novel change it actually looks like a return to the Third Party System. Isthis return to two national parties duking it out while a strong third party challenges both a permanent change? Whoknows, ask me again after the next election. The fact is that the last ten+ years have been confusing for political scientists.Was it a continuation of the fourth party system or a realignment in how parties relate to each other and the electorate?We just don't know. Canada has traditionally had predictable elections punctuated by realignments that fundamentallychanged the system. It may well be that you could count the last few elections as a slow motion realignment. Or maybe​the framework of how the Canadian Party Systems have been classified is no longer useful.

Oh sure, the policy platforms are different but at a structural level this election is a return to the past.

Peter Stoffer & Pat Martin Defeated

Two NDP defeats that surprised many was that of Peter Stoffer and Pat Martin. Both were expected to coast to victory.Of the two I consider Peter Stoffer to be the greater lose. Peter was a dedicated, hardworking MP who was a consistentvoice on the left in favour of the monarchy. Peter Stoffer, you will be missed. On the other hand we have Pat Martinwho's foul-mouthed outbursts are well known. He is also a republican of the worse sort and I shed no tears over hisdeparture.

The Tories Remain In A Good Position

An Official Opposition with one hundred seats and a decent share of the popular vote is not a terrible place to be at.Previous Conservative defeats have left the party broken (and broke). Neither is the case this time around. The Torieshave a pretty good lineup of potential leadership candidates. If I have a concern it is this: the PC wing of the party took the most damage in this fight. And while it will most likely be rebuilt after the next election I fear it being rebuilt in theimage of western discontent. We'll see.

On a more meta level the Conservative defeat has buried talk of the left uniting. While the Conservatives might like tobelieve they would hold power more often under a two-party, left-right system I am less convinced. A situation where theleft splits every third or fourth election is a recipe for governing more often, not less.

And then there are economic considerations. Canada has a housing bubble, China's economy is slowing, and Europe hasnot fixed its structural issues that led to the Greece Default Crisis. In short, the next four years are not likely to be clear​sailing on the economic front. And if the Liberals falter the Conservatives will be returning to power real quick.

​Much like the Liberals in the 1930s, the Conservatives may find themselves glad to have lost this one.

The Pirate Party Needs To Reflect

There is no sugar-coating things; the Pirate Party did not perform well. It ran 5 candidates (down from 10 in 2011) and got900 votes (down from 3000 in 2011). While this may well be a national trend (most other minor parties lost votes) thePirate Party needs to reflect on its role going forward. As a former leader of the party I can say with some authority thatparty organization and volunteer retention is lackluster at its best. It needs to improve.

It is also true that if some of the minor parties joined together they would at least have a shot at relevancy. Perhaps a ​thought for the future?